Project: EU urbanism
from www.eu-urbanism.de.
EU urbanism
The process of expansion of the European Union has had a huge effect on cities and regions in Eastern Europe.
The “Return to Europe” was associated with historically-founded national concepts of identity, and therefore also signified reaching the “normality” of European nation states. Europeisation also supported, as a cultural code, the reform movement in Eastern Europe before and after the fall of the iron curtain. Affiliation to “Central Europe” also still affects negotiations on specific moral concepts and cultural models. Europeisation, however, is far less a process of reversion than one of the
reorientation of many East German cities in a new geographical context. The
creation of a unified European space takes place over a long term process of adjustment to legal, institutional and economic regulations. In the context of this development, it must be questioned whether and when this model of the “European city” will be extended to Eastern Europe. Despite the proven adaptability of this urban model over centuries, certain characteristics can be ascertained, which define it as: a place for the objectification of history, a place for emancipation and a place for a particular way of living that represents a specific physical design and is regulated by the welfare state (Siebel 2004).
Using the example of selected places and issues in the new Europe, the extent to which these cities are testing grounds for the diversification of the model of the “European city” is to be examined. A second issue is whether, in the face of the fundamental upheaval inherent to the transformation brought about by global structural change, a fundamentally new definition of the concept and substance of the European city must be found.
1) Cultural capitals – places for urban living?
The theme “European cultural capital” is to examine the approach to the historic aspects of a city, since the evaluation of history and local tradition plays a central role in the development of cultural capitals.
Inquiry must, moreover, be directed towards ascertaining which concepts of
urban living and culture take hold here, and to what extent these are integrated with the activities of local parties and the urban civil society.
Within the context of processes in cultural capitals, the aim is not only to try to reinterpret and imagine the history and architecture of each of the cities in a European way; it frequently also includes building and art projects that focus on international or transnational developments. Often, images of a cosmopolitan European metropolis are conceived that are rarely backed up by the urban daily practices of the residents.
Using the examples of the cultural capital 2007 Sibiu/Hermannstadt, and the dual city Görlitz/Zgorzelec, which is still in the process of acceptance as a “cultural capital”, the programme will approach the following questions:
What do “cultural capitals” have to contribute as an instrument of
“Europeisation in the 21st century”? Which concepts and beliefs of European culture and ways of life are communicated in the process? Are programmes in
cultural capitals accompanied by a pressure to homogenise with Europe or,
respectively, to what extent do they contribute to the diversification of a
multi-ethnic European urban culture?
2) EU standardised cities
The second programme will examine the institutional and spatial effects the assimilation of the cities of the new member countries has on the policies of the European Union. Acceding countries, whether already full members or still in negotiation, mean for the process of integration above all a readjustment of society and space, of infrastructure and economy in keeping with the programmes and policies of the EU. Conforming to the economic policies of the EU requires, for example, the privatisation of state property, which in the context of transformation has usually come into the possession of international financers. What is the case for municipal self government when the scope of municipal authorities is becoming more and more limited? Inquiry must, furthermore, examine the European model of governance with regard to collective welfare institutions in Eastern European cities when one condition of integration into the EU was the dismantling of existing welfare state institutions. Another issue is whether other models of the formation of institutions can be detected that first arose within the context of transformation.
In addition, the influence the EU’s large-scale infrastructure programmes has on each of the cities and their spatial reorganisation must be examined: Do they result in suburbanisation processes or in new centralisations? What kinds of spatial differentiations do these bring? The question is, one could say, one of how much spatial fragmentation the “European city” can take.
EU urbanism
The process of expansion of the European Union has had a huge effect on cities and regions in Eastern Europe.
The “Return to Europe” was associated with historically-founded national concepts of identity, and therefore also signified reaching the “normality” of European nation states. Europeisation also supported, as a cultural code, the reform movement in Eastern Europe before and after the fall of the iron curtain. Affiliation to “Central Europe” also still affects negotiations on specific moral concepts and cultural models. Europeisation, however, is far less a process of reversion than one of the
reorientation of many East German cities in a new geographical context. The
creation of a unified European space takes place over a long term process of adjustment to legal, institutional and economic regulations. In the context of this development, it must be questioned whether and when this model of the “European city” will be extended to Eastern Europe. Despite the proven adaptability of this urban model over centuries, certain characteristics can be ascertained, which define it as: a place for the objectification of history, a place for emancipation and a place for a particular way of living that represents a specific physical design and is regulated by the welfare state (Siebel 2004).
Using the example of selected places and issues in the new Europe, the extent to which these cities are testing grounds for the diversification of the model of the “European city” is to be examined. A second issue is whether, in the face of the fundamental upheaval inherent to the transformation brought about by global structural change, a fundamentally new definition of the concept and substance of the European city must be found.
1) Cultural capitals – places for urban living?
The theme “European cultural capital” is to examine the approach to the historic aspects of a city, since the evaluation of history and local tradition plays a central role in the development of cultural capitals.
Inquiry must, moreover, be directed towards ascertaining which concepts of
urban living and culture take hold here, and to what extent these are integrated with the activities of local parties and the urban civil society.
Within the context of processes in cultural capitals, the aim is not only to try to reinterpret and imagine the history and architecture of each of the cities in a European way; it frequently also includes building and art projects that focus on international or transnational developments. Often, images of a cosmopolitan European metropolis are conceived that are rarely backed up by the urban daily practices of the residents.
Using the examples of the cultural capital 2007 Sibiu/Hermannstadt, and the dual city Görlitz/Zgorzelec, which is still in the process of acceptance as a “cultural capital”, the programme will approach the following questions:
What do “cultural capitals” have to contribute as an instrument of
“Europeisation in the 21st century”? Which concepts and beliefs of European culture and ways of life are communicated in the process? Are programmes in
cultural capitals accompanied by a pressure to homogenise with Europe or,
respectively, to what extent do they contribute to the diversification of a
multi-ethnic European urban culture?
2) EU standardised cities
The second programme will examine the institutional and spatial effects the assimilation of the cities of the new member countries has on the policies of the European Union. Acceding countries, whether already full members or still in negotiation, mean for the process of integration above all a readjustment of society and space, of infrastructure and economy in keeping with the programmes and policies of the EU. Conforming to the economic policies of the EU requires, for example, the privatisation of state property, which in the context of transformation has usually come into the possession of international financers. What is the case for municipal self government when the scope of municipal authorities is becoming more and more limited? Inquiry must, furthermore, examine the European model of governance with regard to collective welfare institutions in Eastern European cities when one condition of integration into the EU was the dismantling of existing welfare state institutions. Another issue is whether other models of the formation of institutions can be detected that first arose within the context of transformation.
In addition, the influence the EU’s large-scale infrastructure programmes has on each of the cities and their spatial reorganisation must be examined: Do they result in suburbanisation processes or in new centralisations? What kinds of spatial differentiations do these bring? The question is, one could say, one of how much spatial fragmentation the “European city” can take.